The Bill of No Rights!

I was thinking about the Bill of No Rights

I had seen it awhile back and thought I would search for it here.

Lo and Behold. I could not find it. I know I had posted it in a comment at least. Well mods, if it was posted as a discussion item, please delete thread. If not, let us cuss and discuss!

Alright, I have looked in numerous places and cannot find anyone else that has put their name on it so I will give Lewis Napper credit unless someone else can prove it came from someone else.

Here is the link-Bill of No Rights

THE BILL OF NO RIGHTS
by Lewis Napper


We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our descendants, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other proponents of socialism and or authoritarianism.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that many people are confused by the Bill of Rights and apparently require a Bill of No Rights.

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country was based upon freedom, and that means freedom for everyone-not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of dolts, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free of harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who will achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free healthcare, regardless of what Hillary thinks. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public heath care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you won't have the right to big screen color TV or life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. All of us want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful

What does ATS members think. Do we need to add any, or take any away? C'mon, let us have a little fun with this, please no bickering! I am not your government so I do not like to be a nanny.

I agree with all that was stated there...quite amazing.

Those are all very good but make no mention of what the gov't should or should not be doing. That list would be quite large I'm afraid.

I agree with nearly all of them, save one

You do not have the right to free healthcare, regardless of what Hillary thinks. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public heath care.

the article speaks from common sense, then takes a political approach...ruining it.

I won't disagree with the premise, but i think if you're going to say that people don't have the 'right' to a public health system, then you should extend that into libraries, police, fire rescue, etc. All of those are forms of the evil "socialism". I just hate it when people say "I want it both ways" and give in to the hypocrisy Gods.


But other than that, unfortunately, we have become a society that pivots on elections every two years. Literally.

And, as a politician, speaking the truth and telling a bunch of lazy poor people "you don't have the right to a big screen TV" isn't going to grant you a large # of votes.



American's don't want the truth. They want deep fried lies with their 2 all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese.


From Asktheanimals:

Those are all very good but make no mention of what the gov't should or should not be doing. That list would be quite large I'm afraid.

I think that if everyone were to follow the bill of no rights - then the role of politicians in this country would dwindle to the equivalent of a meter maid. Politicians thrive on false promises. False promises are like a drug to lazy people. Since this country is FULL of lazy, fat, stupid, worthless people, well....i think you get the rest

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Snarf]

I would add....

You do NOT have the right to happiness, but the pursuit of happiness.
This means getting off your butt and working for it, whether through education, employment, character development, etc.

reply to post by Snarf


You have to realize this was created a LONG time ago. That is why Hillary is mentioned on the health care Article. I do not know how old you are, but the same thing went down back in the day.

People may think you have a right to Federal supplied health care, but it is not listed in the Constitution. Why has it NEVER been offered up as an Amendment to the Constitution? States are allowed to offer health care systems and there are states that have them.

I think the author did a good job all around.

As for the citizens not wanting the truth. If the MSM did not obfuscate and lie we could have had a non-lying politician as potus.

Lying to me, is the epitome of WHAT should be the first and final arbiter of measurement for ANY and ALL politicians.

Thanks for the comment.

[edit on 2/28/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by smyleegrl


Well, the author wanted to put down what we do not have the rights to. I can see your point that some think the gov should be responsible for everything.

The more I look at it, the more I think the author did one hell of a job.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Yeah, I thought of just updating it, but it does still stand on its own doesn't it?

reply to post by ventian


Yeah, I have used this in arguments before, so I wanted to have it near at hand for future reference. I think I first got this in an Email about 7 years ago. I cannot quite remember when, I do remember printing it out and giving it to a bunch of friends and co-workers.